5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 23 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Virginia Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of America, LLC and Virgina Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of America, LLC and Virgina Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Anchor | green | “the mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of 'issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” | 7 |
| 2 | Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins | green | “i think that the combination of the mandate rule and law of the case rule confines the litigation to this point from the date of the amendment up to the date of what i found to be the breach to mr. rosenberg's figures.” | 4 |
| 3 | Mary Ann Rowe v. Charles S. Rowe | green | “a trial judge is bound by a decision and mandate from an appellate court, unless the court acted outside its jurisdiction.” | 4 |
| 4 | Reid v. Reid | green | “a suit for divorce . . . does not involve an appeal to the general jurisdiction of the equity forum.” | 4 |
| 5 | McCotter v. Carle | green | “the many limitations, both in respect to jurisdiction and procedure, placed upon divorce suits by the statute, differentiate the - 11 - divorce case from ordinary suits in equity,” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.